Letters to the Editor
-
"Can you defend America?" Who are we voting for, Superman?
Of all the idiotic criteria for picking a President, the quesiton of whether he or she can "defend America" ranks up near the top. Any President can defend America, and any President will defend America, if by defending one means that the President consults with his or her cabinet and Congress and military officials, and acts accordingly, i.e., making credible threats against our enemies, or striking out against them with our armed forces.
Hell, even a fat, weak and cowardly wimp like Rush Limbaugh could "defend America." All he would have to do is tell stronger and more capable people to make it happen.
What the Repugs really mean when they say, "defend America," is to act like vicious bullies and heartless murderers. They want a macho fool who can drop bombs on countries which flout our empire's aspirations. They want a macho fool who can send overwhelming forces to some pathetic little island nation in the name of freedom (and business). What Repugs do not want is a thoughtful leader who might question the necessity of spreading death and destruction around the globe, simply because we happen to be the biggest gorilla in the jungle. The fact that even the tiniest, most downtrodden gorillas can attack us in our sleep never occurs to them. It's all about showing the world who has the biggest dick.
In that regard, the Republican Party does have a logical strategy: the nominate the biggest dick they can find.
-
Happy days are here again!
Wow! What a bunch of losers they are all.
-
A correction
Actually, Stengel's quote should read "Can't anybody play this here game?".
-
"Gadfly" Ron Paul
So now here's my question.
McCain, who continues to take flack for his moderate stance on immigration, announced his fundraising total of $5 million for the third quarter, a paltry sum that put him on par with -- drum roll, please -- antiwar libertarian gadfly Ron Paul. Meanwhile, a front-page New York Times story reflected the revised conventional wisdom about the only actor-politician in the race with this headline: "Subdued Thompson Stirs Few Sparks on Stump."
Thompson raises no money, has given no decent speech, cannot keep track of the status of who is in charge of the russian land mass and changes staff three times--and he still earns front page coverage. Ron Paul has raised as much money as anyone, has a clear message that is different from the others--a message that happens to ring true with independents and disaffected republicans, and he gets not coverage, beyond the "Gadfly" label.
So how does this work? What makes John McCain or Fred Thompson a "legitimate" candidate, while Paul is cast aside? What does he have to do to be treated as one of the real candidates. You can't cite the polls; at this stage, the polls are driven by name recognition, which are in turn driven by media coverage. Where's the cover of Time or Newsweek story on the growing threat of Ron Paul?
Does it have anything to do with his opposition to the occupation? Is that what makes him not a Serious Candidate? Because I don't see why he is not at the forefront with the rest of these loons.
-
The real question is, how will the Democratic candidate wimp out?
There are attacks, both official and underhanded, ready for any of the potential Democratic candidates. So far, they have shown no courage in their stances on the stump, or (for the elected ones) in their votes against the Republicans. And undoubtedly they will show the same cowardice when the Republicans attack.
In the case of Clinton, her coping mechanisms are ignoring the attacks (which didn't work for Gore or Kerry) and her Roseanne laugh (already being used by Limbaugh and company in the same fashion as Dean's yelp). Obama has mostly kept to his inspirational script, and may do so when the underhanded Klan attack on him starts revving up. No chance that Edwards will get the nomination, but he couldn't face off on the "pretty boy" attacks.
The story of Indecision 2008 will be, who is the weakest candidate? Will the Democrat wither before the Republican collapses? Yes, America will be choosing the least damaged candidate of them all.
-
The Establishment wants Clinton vs. Some Republican Shmuck
So if we let the political hacks in the media choose for us, we get an plasticy, corrupt, Washington insider with fairly conservative leanings- or a Republican frontrunner.
Is it possible to win an election when no one shows up at the polls?
Let's try this. If the Republicans vote their true beliefs and vote Ron Paul while the Democrats vote their beliefs and vote Dennis Kucinich, maybe we could actually have candidates people want to vote for.
-
@jayackroyd
So how does this work? What makes John McCain or Fred Thompson a "legitimate" candidate, while Paul is cast aside? What does he have to do to be treated as one of the real candidates.
The media doesn't like him; they like their creations, like John "Maverick" McCain and Fred "Deep-fried Reagan with a side of grits" Thompson. It's as simple as that, unfortunately -- those candidates that the media likes and has a sense of entitlement to get ink and airtime, while outsiders, those who don't fit well with the overall media narratives, those don't get the time of day. It's fascinating to watch, especially as Ron Paul does so well, moneywise. You can almost hear the cognitive dissonance. As the Internet becomes ever more central to politicking, I imagine we'll see more upstart campaigns and media head-scratching.
Third parties should eventually be more doable, now, because the media stranglehold on acceptability is breaking, and just like how indie rock bands can reach fans directly via the Net, so can indie politicians do the same, which will hopefully mean more parties will arise and slowly break the duopoly, and the parties that actually represent what people want will begin to get elected. Radical concept, that democracy, eh? You can see why the powers that be avoid it so strenuously; it messes everything up!
-
Some qualified, but are any truly Presidential, that is--do we want to have a beer with them?
Giuliani is just too alien to the middle america from which I hail. His high profile divorces, bejeweled present wife, and gay roomates. Even the blessings of 9/11 can't save this guy from looking too Big City Tabloid.
And McCain, once independent, reasonable, and maverick turned pro-Bush and hawkish at precisely the wrong time. Now he just seems bitter sitting in the back of the "Sourpuss Express."
Then there's Rommney with something too crisp and sears.com about his 'workin' blue' button down shirts. His plasticity and past flip flops aren't earning him any regular joe cred. And Mormonism? That's just plain weird to most Americans. I myself don't want to have a beer with any guy who might be wearing magic underwear.
Which leaves Fred Thompson, who despite charisma, seems oddly flaccid and unimpassioned, and ill prepared so far. He scores points in that American men would like to have a beer with him and ask the question, "how did you sack that hot wife?"
Perhaps Thompson is the sleeping elephant, playing it cool until the race is really on. He seems about as on top of world events as an non-newspaper reading American President so another point there. But that begs the question? Where's his Cheney? Condi?
Finally, let's consider combos: Guiliani and Romney? (it's like Dynasty meets Leave it to Beaver). McCain and Fred Thompson? They look too Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy.
From this motley bunch of barely front runners, you really realize how the disasterous, criminal, corrupt and constitution raping Cheney regime fronted by Forrest Bush Gump could look so good to Americans just looking for a World leader that would create a foreign and domestic policy that could make sense at just about any elevated blood alcohol level.